mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Workload Identification with Physical Side Channels for AI Governance

arXiv 2609.00309 ↗First posted 31 Aug 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI compute verification is one of the first tangible and tractable points for international policy aimed at AI governance. Determining whether frontier labs, or any operator, comply with agreements requires the regulating authority to discern how their compute is used. The elementary building block of AI compute is the GPU, and any activity it executes leaves a physical trace. Here, we show that an external observer can identify the class of the workload running on an NVIDIA H200 from its power draw. Unlike on-chip NVML telemetry, which can be spoofed or replayed, such a physical channel can in principle be observed independently of operator cooperation. We recorded 930 five-second traces at ~ 10 MHz, covering seventeen open LLM families and twenty-five non-AI workloads. Over this corpus we separate training from inference and from non-AI computation with an accuracy of 97% and a macro-averaged F1 score of 0.955, evaluated on model families unseen during training. AI workload spectral content predominantly lies below ~ 20kHz and training is particularly recognizable through the memory-bound optimizer update. The GPU operator is then treated as adversarial and able to reshape the physical computation itself. Four evasion strategies are tested to disguise training as inference, producing an additional 680 adversarial traces. A detector hardened against evasion strategies, with the tested strategy held out, catches training ≥ 99% of the time for three of the four strategies. The fourth, diluted low-rank adaptation (LoRA), is detected 48--88% of the time with a hardened classifier, rising to ≥ 98% with an additional rescue rule. While these attacks are not a comprehensive evaluation against adversarial behaviour, they offer initial insights beyond genuine activities and a dataset for developing and testing stronger evasion mechanisms.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

Builds on

12 of 21 references.

References · 12

  1. 2024Open Problems in Technical AI Governancecited by 49
  2. 2023What does it take to catch a Chinchilla? Verifying Rules on Large-Scale Neural Network Training via Compute Monitoringcited by 21
  3. 2025MoEcho: Exploiting Side-Channel Attacks to Compromise User Privacy in Mixture-of-Experts LLMscited by 13
  4. 2025Verifying International Agreements on AI: Six Layers of Verification for Rules on Large-Scale AI Development and Deploymentcited by 11
  5. 2025Mechanisms to Verify International Agreements About AI Developmentcited by 9
  6. 2021Can one hear the shape of a neural network?: Snooping the GPU via Magnetic Side Channelcited by 8
  7. 2025Hardware-Enabled Mechanisms for Verifying Responsible AI Developmentcited by 8
  8. 2026Expert Selections In MoE Models Reveal (Almost) As Much As Textcited by 6
  9. 2025Flexible Hardware-Enabled Guarantees for AI Computecited by 4
  10. 2026Detecting Hidden ML Training With Zero-Overhead Telemetrycited by 4
  11. 2026Kraken: Higher-order EM Side-Channel Attacks on DNNs in Near and Far Fieldcited by 1
  12. 2026Measurement of Generative AI Workload Power Profiles for Whole-Facility Data Center Infrastructure Planningcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.